Henry V -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 sentences:
Hal is sick of partying, so he conquers France. He's really good at it.

People who should see this show:
Everyone. Get off the computer and get to it right now.

At last: a show I knew well enough not to have to read up on beforehand. Henry V, England's greatest king (I like his son better), and one of Shakespeare's favourite historical subjects. The play comes smack in the middle of the histories, and was written just in the middle of Shakespeare's career. Rousing speeches, well-written characters and lots of action, against a backdrop that Elizabethans must have enjoyed ("We beat the French").

I loved it. Even though when I think about it, I might actually be on the side of the French (next on my summer reading list: Henry V, War Criminal? by John Sutherland and Cedric Watts), I was totally rooting for Henry.

I loved it so much that I didn't mind waiting for hours ahead of time. Even the commercial before the show was kinda fun. What a difference good direction makes. Meg Roe's staging was flawless.

I must admit, we went about it the wrong way. We should have seen Falstaff first, as probably everyone else is going to do. There were a few scenes that we knew would have been more powerful if we'd seen the back story more recently, rather than just vaguely remembering it. But they were still emotionally satisfying, and I'm hard-pressed to see how I could have enjoyed the show more.

The play is narrated throughout, much more so than any of Shakespeare's other plays (according to Wikipedia, anyway). Collen Wheeler's Chorus achieves admirably the very difficult task of making me use my imagination during summer vacation as she instructs my mind to picture vast sets and cast of thousands before me. Her commanding presence, combined with Pam Johnson's simple and effective set, and the brilliantly choreographed battle scenes (thank you choreographer Rob Kitsos and fight director Nicholas Harrison) made me always willing to believe that the battle had just occured in front of my eyes.

All the performances were great, but most important in this one is obviously Henry's; he has to carry the show. Alessandro Juliani did a brilliant job. One slight problem I have had with other Henrys is knowing that he has been, as prince Hal, a party boy for his whole life, but that as soon as his father dies he suddenly becomes the serious king who conquers France. Juliani's performance maintains Henry's youthful demeanor; we see the change starting during the play itself, but the transformation is only fully realized at the end of the play. I enjoy that. His rousing speeches are not the studied rhetoric I've seen before; they are impassioned pleas made by a guy who used to party with the commoners.

As we left the tent, we thought pityingly of the poor suckers at the mainstage, stuck watching Antony and Cleopatra for another half-hour. If I had it to do over again, I would have skipped it entirely in order to see Henry V twice.

Absolutely see it. I'll go with you. Plays until September 24.

Some Highlights:
Kevin McNulty's history lesson as the Archbishop of Canterbury: the perfect way to begin the show, he made the most boring part of the piece hilarious.
Rob Kitsos and Nicholas Harrison's battle and marching scenes: pure brilliance. Normally I put fight-dances in the same category as dream ballets -- embarrassing and best ignored completely. These were amazing, and actually heightened the drama of the piece.
Josef Gustafson: totally held his own with the adults on the stage. Really well done.
Amber Lewis and Kayla Doerksen's scenes: very funny.

Antony and Cleopatra -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 sentences:
Octavius Caesar takes advantage of Mark Antony's midlife crisis. Cleopatra does too, but in a different way and with less long-term success.

People who should see this show:
People who don't think you should mess with Shakespeare.
People who like over-enunciated words that are disconnected from any meaning.
People with nothing better to do.


We worried a bit before the show. Would we get there on time? Would we get good seats? Would Haig Sutherland be in it? We couldn't answer the first two questions, but the last required only a few clicks of the mouse: yes, Haig Sutherland would be in it. Crap.

We tried to be positive. Maybe he would interpret this part differently. Maybe he would not have as much stage time this year. Maybe he wouldn't ruin the show. But in our hearts, we knew it was going to be a long night.

Made even longer by Bard on the Beach's insistence on sticking with their "first-come-first-served-put-your-name-on-a-chair-to-reserve-it" system. Seriously, just have assigned seating or not.

This system makes the lineup interminable, and generally in the middle of the sun. Neither Hubby nor I enjoy lines or sunshine, so we sat in the shade and judged audience members as we waited. Judging people is definitely something we enjoy. We pointed out to each other who hated Shakespeare but was being dragged there, who hated Shakespeare but pretended not to, who would be nodding along sagely with the actors, and who had bad hair.

At last the lineup began to move, and eventually we joined it. Our seats were fine. Back row, centre -- the back row is still really close to the stage. We then went to get some coffee (Hubby is one of those people who gets dragged there, and needs a little help to get through the evening). The harried volunteers at the concession stand were running about, brows creased as they counted out change, looking for work to do. An enjoyable prelude to the evening.

We milled about for a while, then went back to our seats. The guy came out to do the commercial (grr), everyone applauded (except me -- I don't enjoy commercials) and the show began.

Apparently, there is a standard interpretation of Antony and Cleopatra: sensual, feminine Egypt represents one part of Marc Antony's personality, and austere, masculine Rome the other. Certainly a valid interpretation, however boring it may be. Possibly it was not boring when it was first interpreted that way. Very boring now, particularly when no other intellectual work goes into the production, and the creative team instead concentrates all their energy to emphasizing the stereotypes.

This was a standard production. Standard set (the best part was gazing through the hole in the tent at the mountains when Haig Sutherland started talking), Standard costuming (with the exception of a few of Cleopatra's accessories), standard direction, and generally standard acting. It was sort of like watching an Olivier movie, without the Olivier.

Antony and Cleopatra was one of Shakepeare's later plays, and disregards the rules of unity; action occurs in Egypt and Rome, it spans quite a long time, and there's a lot goin on. Fine, I don't care much for rules, but without careful direction it makes for a busy play. Scott Bellis wasn't all that careful. While the play itself converges to a unified story, his direction did not. To the last scene it was disjointed.

The performances, as I said, were standard. Haig Sutherland, as Octavius Caesar, over-enunciated every word in a quizzical voice as though he were stoned. Sort of like a confused Charlie Brown's teacher. Jennifer Lines, as Cleopatra, was excellent. She played both the comedy and tragedy of the role to perfection, but couldn't save the show. Andrew Wheeler as Mark Antony was fine. Unfortunately, the stereotyped standard interpretation made most of the smaller parts quite forgettable: John Murphy's cartoonish Alexas stands out, but not for good reasons; Shawn MacDonald's messenger was funny.

Hubby and I discussed it on our way home. Next year we'll look at the casting before we buy tickets.

See the show if you must, but I wouldn't if I were you. Plays until September 24.

Some Highlights:
Knowing that the rest of the Bard shows are going to be better than this one.
Jennifer Lines' scenes with Shawn MacDonald: both are good, but the second was the funner.
Jennifer Lines' Cleopatra: she's great.
The sea-battle scenes were kinda cool.

Around the World in 80 Days -- Gateway Theatre

Story in 2 Sentences:
Phileas Fogg goes around the world in 80 days. Wow.

People who should see this show:
The employees of the theatre. Cause they have to.



There was just nothing good about it. At all. The story seems like it could produce something worth seeing, but it never did. It was a series of uninteresting anecdotes, bad slapstick, and uninspired dialogue made difficult to understand by bad accents. Parnelli Parnes, playing Passepartout, certainly acted his heart out, but it was to no avail. I have been in his shoes, acting my heart out in what I knew in the depths of my soul was a horrible, horrible show, and I cannot blame him at all for what I saw. Nor can I blame Ted Cole, playing Fogg, who, it seemed, was directed by Simon Johnston to never show any emotion. Possibly this made him an amusing character to read about in the book. Certainly it made the production incredibly boring. I do, however, blame Keith Martin Gordey for his horrible slapstick, horrible accents and horrible characterization as Detective Fix and other characters.

We wanted to leave about 3 seconds into it, but there were people blocking our way. We held out until intermission (at least there was an intermission -- we'd wanted to walk out of Drowning Girls the previous month, but were stuck in the back row with no escape possible outside of running across the water-covered stage), grabbed our things, headed to the door -- and ran into an associate of hubby's, who has something to do with the production. We cheerfully lied and avoided eye contact, then made excuses about going to the bathroom and ran out of the theatre, never to return.

Seriously, never. We got season tickets as an experiment, and understand now what a mistake that was. The Gateway is not a good theatre. It just seems that it's the only thing going in on Richmond.

Some Highlights:
The trick with the elephant (although it was ruined immediately by a fart joke).
My daring escape at intermission.

Mr. Dexter and her Daily -- Arts Club Theatre

The story in 2 sentences:

Mrs. Dexter's husband left her for her best friend and she's so, so sad. Her slave wants to retire.

People who should see this show:
People who like Shirley Valentine
People who like hierarchy
People who like Rosie the riveter



I am the kind of guy who likes monologues that show different points of view, and I thought If We Are Women was a brilliant play. So when you combine that genre with that playwright, it is right up my alley.

However, the play itself wasn't as good as I'd hoped for. It was pretty predictable, with fairly safe conventions and and nothing really special or surprising. I liked it, I just wouldn't have picked it for a season.

What strikes us every time when we go to the Stanley is the high production value. I know, I know, it's all about the words and the acting, and the Greeks didn't have sets, but I still like to see a cool set. And this one, a kitchen complete with working electrical sockets, freezer and plumbing, was pretty cool. The costumes were, if not incredible, believable without looking cheap, and perfect for the characters.

The play is basically two monologues: the first act by Peggy (the daily), and the second by her employer. Act 1 is fine; a lot of exposition, a lot of character work for both characters (Peggy's opinions tell us a lot about Mrs. Dexter before we even see her), and a few gags. But, regardless of Peggy's happy-go-lucky charm, the entire purpose of act 1 is to preload us for act 2, and I think that's a shame. Peggy's story as it's told to us isn't interesting enough to be a play in itself, unlike Mrs. Dexter's. The devices Glass uses for her monologues, although suited to the characters, also differed in quality: speaking to a friend who isn't there (Mrs. Dexter) is far more interesting than speaking to god or the audience (Peggy). Act 2 is a beaultiful piece of work, worth the exposition. Mrs. Dexter's story of betrayal and her reaction to it is what shines in the play.

The class structure of the play is interesting to me. I find it a bit disturbing that lower-class woman has the less compelling story, and remains dependent on her employer even to be able to retire comfortably. But now that I have a cleaning lady, I must admit that I'm less uncomfortable than I once would have been.

Both actresses did quite well, nearly dropping some lines here and there, but that was more than made up for by brilliant characterization. It's a pity that Cavendish didn't have more to work with in the script; act 1 was the weaker, but not due to her performance.

See it, if you get a chance. Bring your maid.

Some highlights
Nicola Cavendish's incredible live re-wiring of an electric fan: really cool.
Fiona Reid's drunk: brilliantly played, believably timed, and both sad and funny.